4 ms·

That I would consider fraud, personally. I’m referring to more subtle bias than that - like maybe you’re putting someone through a scenario, then trying to clas

by yashap 3y ago

That I would consider fraud, personally. I’m referring to more subtle bias than that - like maybe you’re putting someone through a scenario, then trying to classify their emotional state afterwards. You classify the clear states properly, but are biased in classifying the borderline ones - like it’s not very clear if they’re sad or anxious, but if anxious fits your hypothesis better, you tend to classify these unclear states as anxious. Maybe that’s not a good example, I’m not a psychologist. But in my experience, scientific studies are full of a surprising number of judgement calls, in all sorts of areas (experimental design, experimental execution, result classification, statistical analysis, exclusion of outliers, etc.), and it’s naive to think bias doesn’t seep into all of these, even for people who are quite committed to the ideals of science. I can’t think of a good way to combat this except very extensive independent reproduction of results.

lucubratory 3y ago
The situations you're describing should be prevented by a double blind trial - they're actually exactly what a double blind is meant to prevent.
- kmeisthax 3y ago
  You're actually thinking of a triple blind trial: i.e. blinding the experimental subject, the scientists administering the experiment, and the statisticians interpreting the results. Double-blind is only the first two.
  - lucubratory 3y ago
    Right, thank you.
- yashap 3y ago
  Yeah, I never worked in a field that did double blind studies - did my MSc in Oceanography, and these were areas I felt bias could (and likely generally did) seep in within Oceanography. I assume each field has its own weak points, but I’d assume most fields do have them, since there’s so little real, independent reproducing of results, we’re basically depending on individual scientists to be perfectly objective, which just isn’t how human beings work IMO.

by yashap 3y ago

lucubratory 3y ago

The situations you're describing should be prevented by a double blind trial - they're actually exactly what a double blind is meant to prevent.

kmeisthax 3y ago
You're actually thinking of a triple blind trial: i.e. blinding the experimental subject, the scientists administering the experiment, and the statisticians interpreting the results. Double-blind is only the first two.
- lucubratory 3y ago
  Right, thank you.
yashap 3y ago
Yeah, I never worked in a field that did double blind studies - did my MSc in Oceanography, and these were areas I felt bias could (and likely generally did) seep in within Oceanography. I assume each field has its own weak points, but I’d assume most fields do have them, since there’s so little real, independent reproducing of results, we’re basically depending on individual scientists to be perfectly objective, which just isn’t how human beings work IMO.